Writing a Series....How does that work?

BlueLucario · Jun 14, 2008

Another silly question that I just can't seem to keep to myself anymore. I'm planning to write a six book series. Like some of my favorite authors did. But I've been reading al about writing a series and I still don't understand how this 'series' stuff works. I read in one of Evanovich's books, that if you're going to write a series, make sure it stands alone. An article said if you're going to write a series and it's your first book, you better pray it sells.(Because the chances, I've been told of selling your first book is extremely low.) I think I can handle the chances. J.K Rowling's first book was a series right? I don't know how she made it big with that.(I'm not in it for the money.)

Anyway. I want to know how all this stuff works. Should you end your book in the middle of an event. Like your character battling a Dark Lord, and the book ends at the middle? I read that it's a good idea, because that way, the reader would want to read what happens next, somewhat of a bedtime story.

Can you tell me what you know about writing a series? Tell me everything you think I need to know about the series.

(I'm almost finished with the book. If anyone has read any part of the story, would anyone mind telling me which age group is appropriate for it?)

Thanks for your help everyone! And I hope I'm not bothering anyone with the stupid questions.

Cindy

DeadlyAccurate · Jun 14, 2008

BlueLucario said:
Anyway. I want to know how all this stuff works. Should you end your book in the middle of an event. Like your character battling a Dark Lord, and the book ends at the middle? I read that it's a good idea, because that way, the reader would want to read what happens next, somewhat of a bedtime story.

Good god, no! Cliffhanger endings suck. It's a good way to get me not to buy the next book, in fact.

Sell one book for now. Then worry about the next.

For the record, if you read The Sorcerer's Stone carefully, you'll notice it ends with enough finality that it could stand alone. It was only the later ones that allowed for more cliffhanger-like endings, and even then, each book (except book 6) could all but stand alone.

Reilly616 · Jun 14, 2008

So far, I'm planing a trilogy. I would hate it if they leaked into each other at the edges. I want them all to stand alone. My favourite author is Terry Pratchett. The first book of his I read was about the 20th in his series, but it stood alone and I wasn't confused. I think that is the best way to do it.

Prozyan · Jun 14, 2008

DeadlyAccurate said:
Good god, no! Cliffhanger endings suck. It's a good way to get me not to buy the next book, in fact.

Just had to echo that.

Mel · Jun 14, 2008

I'll also go with what DA said.

There's also another factor to consider. What if the first book doesn't sell enough? If it didn't then the others wouldn't be picked up. And, I can't say how many times I've seen Book 2, 4, or whatever but can never find the others. I've also got to the end of a few and read "To be continued." Made me want to throw the book at the wall. Did I get the next one? Nope. Actually I forgot about them.

You need to realize that books do go out of print.

HeronW · Jun 14, 2008

In my series, they can be read as stand alone with different problems and resolutions happening to the same core of characters. Sub plots may sneak into following books or I end with a dissapearance of a character who may or may not show up the same in the following book. The 2nd villain from 3 is the 1st antagonist in 4.

BlueLucario · Jun 14, 2008

Mel said:
You need to realize that books do go out of print.

Is that because they never sell?

I got an idea! So if the readers think the book is all by itself, then they see the next book coming out, they'd be more likely to buy it. Just a guess.

Calla Lily · Jun 14, 2008

Case in point: Meredit Ann Pierce's Darkangel trilogy. I loved loved loved the first (1982). It was not a standalone. Loved the second (1984). It was not a standalone and I was getting annoyed. Kept looking for the third, which didn't come out till 1989--and I HATED it. Hated what she did with the characters. Hated the plot. Was so TO'd at the conclusion that I will never pick up another one of her books again. I have an inkling that if they'd been standalones I'd have not been as desperate for # 3 and maybe not as disappointed.

My thriller is a planned series of 3, but each will be a standalone. My mystery could go on as long as I can think of plots, also each a standalone. Don't know about the vampire book yet. (*pleads with the Great and Mighty Gods of Marketing that one of the publishers will buy my books*)

Danger Jane · Jun 14, 2008

Cliffhanger endings really suck, like DeadlyAccurate said. You're gonna make me wait 12-24 months to find out what happens? What the hell?

Is my reaction, and most peoples'.

You want book one to be able to stand alone as its own book, not as part one of a series, ideally.

Danger Jane · Jun 14, 2008

DeadlyAccurate said:
For the record, if you read The Sorcerer's Stone carefully, you'll notice it ends with enough finality that it could stand alone. It was only the later ones that allowed for more cliffhanger-like endings, and even then, each book (except book 6) could all but stand alone.

Super important to note. The Harry Potter books are all episodic within the larger arc of the series. I felt pretty satisfied when I finished each one of them--book six, of course, being something of an exception...but there wasn't exactly much risk of books going out of print, etc, at that point, unless JK Rowling turned out to be a bigoted plagiarizing demonically-possessed Scientologist, or something.

Write4U2 · Jun 14, 2008

HeronW said:
In my series, they can be read as stand alone with different problems and resolutions happening to the same core of characters. Sub plots may sneak into following books or I end with a dissapearance of a character who may or may not show up the same in the following book. The 2nd villain from 3 is the 1st antagonist in 4.

Exactly. That's what I plan to do.

BlueLucario · Jun 14, 2008

You know. I think stand alones make perfect sense. With the cliffhanger ending, by the time the next book comes out the reader would probably forget about it. For some reason, each of the harry potter series was a bit repetitive, except book seven. Yeah, book six was the worst.

tehuti88 · Jun 14, 2008

As a series writer, I believe each book should tie up the main conflict of the story, even if it leaves smaller subplots hanging (those can be covered in the sequels). To end a book with a cliffhanger for the pain plot is kind of a cheat, IMO. Not everybody will buy every book in a series, so it'd be best to make it capable of standing alone; if you show that you can tie up a plot decently, the reader will be more motivated to buy the next book, as opposed to the book ending in the middle of things, which is just annoying. Plus, some people might be introduced to the series with the second or third book (I picked up a few readers once in my second story, not the first), so to buy this thing, open it up, and then realize that they've already missed half the story will seem like a ripoff.

It seems to me that only more established writers would be able to get away with something like that--writers who already have a good following which is willing to buy their works.

Try to make each book a decent standalone story with a beginning, middle, and end. Each book should have its very own plot, even if the plots of each book tie in together in the end.

That's my opinion at least. I wouldn't know about publishing.

Greenwolf103 · Jun 14, 2008

As far as writing a series is concerned, take notes from the first book. Keep a file on stats. Such as relatives' names, quirks, name of places, etc. I pretty much put together a "file" for each of my main characters. That way, I won't have to wade through the first book to see how many years younger one character's little brother is while I'm in the middle of the next book.

Danger Jane · Jun 14, 2008

BlueLucario said:
You know. I think stand alones make perfect sense. With the cliffhanger ending, by the time the next book comes out the reader would probably forget about it. For some reason, each of the harry potter series was a bit repetitive, except book seven. Yeah, book six was the worst.

Well, each episode ends in a similar way. Tying up the book's plot for now, going home for summer...but the series arc stays up in the air. It's what kept each book compelling.

Pila · Jun 14, 2008

NO CLIFFHANGER ENDINGS, EVER!

Well, okay, maybe not ever, but they really do suck terribly. At least the major ones, like you said if you end it in the middle of a big battle scene. You'd get lots of angry letters from people.

I've always heard that, if you're a new author, that the first book in your series should be as stand alone as you can make it, that way if it doesn't sell and you're unable to publish the remainder of the series, at least a general idea of the story was told. That could leave room for if you later on publish a different novel that sells well, then you can bargain to complete the series.

ChaosTitan · Jun 14, 2008

BlueLucario said:
(I'm almost finished with the book. If anyone has read any part of the story, would anyone mind telling me which age group is appropriate for it?)

Bolding mine.

Bluntly, finishing your book will be far more beneficial than wondering if/how to turn it into a series. There will be no series of you don't write the first book. There will be no series of you don't polish the first book until it shines so brightly an agent simply must sign you (or an editor simply must buy it). There is too much work ahead to wonder about writing a series at this stage, Blue.

You need to complete a novel first.

Kalyke · Jun 14, 2008

Another potential is just a serial character like Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan, who showed up at various ages. Many authors create serial characters. They are most common in PI, Spy, Counter-intelligence, Mystery books. Sometimes they appear for a few books, sometimes more, but the author is not bound to writing book after book about this character. The books are all stand alone. The characters are introduced over again. Lawrence Block had several serial characters, and he alternated writing about them in between other books. Anyway, having a character that you can write about again and again is a good alternative to being stuck with a series.

Matera the Mad · Jun 14, 2008

The funny thing about a book being satisfying, is that it whets the appetite for more!

Foreshadowing is all right, though, you can leave hints and clues to be expanded on and resolved in future volumes. Be subtle.

Just as an example of reader aggravation -- Jean Auel made her fans hang twelve years for a plotless wad after ending with a tantalizing scene. A lot of (ex- in some cases)readers are not holding their breath for the next one.

Write4U2 · Jun 14, 2008

Matera the Mad said:
The funny thing about a book being satisfying, is that it whets the appetite for more!

Foreshadowing is all right, though, you can leave hints and clues to be expanded on and resolved in future volumes. Be subtle.

Just as an example of reader aggravation -- Jean Auel made her fans hang twelve years for a plotless wad after ending with a tantalizing scene. A lot of (ex- in some cases)readers are not holding their breath for the next one.

Yes, and just to add to that, it's the likeability of the main character and pleasure the reader gets from the main character. You want more of this person. The character becomes like a "friend."

Matera the Mad · Jun 14, 2008

What she said!

BlueLucario · Jun 15, 2008

Danger Jane said:
Well, each episode ends in a similar way. Tying up the book's plot for now, going home for summer...but the series arc stays up in the air. It's what kept each book compelling.

Wow, Rowling's got a good Example of a stand alone series. Should I also make each book more episodic?

Mr Flibble · Jun 15, 2008

Series -- a number of standalone plots featuring the same characters. Say Star Trek, or Law and Order.

Serial -- a number of episodes featuring the continuation of a plot with the same characters ( you need to see them all to make sense of it). Heroes, or Babylon 5.

Most books are series, not serials. For a reason -- it narks people off when they think they have a story that will end -- and then find they need to buy another book to find out what happens.

Linda Adams · Jun 15, 2008

If you want to write a series, the first thing you need to do is completely finish this book. Then set it aside for a while before revising it and work on an entirely different book with different characters (no Lily, no Falcon, no Ayana) that could potentially be turned into a series. To quote Bookends Literary Agency's blog:

I would never urge a writer to work on the next book in the series while I’m submitting the first. When a series idea is on submission I talk with the author and encourage her to start coming up with fresh new ideas. Why? Because if the first book in the series isn’t going to sell, it’s very likely the second book isn’t either.

Do come up with some general ideas that you might be able to use if the series gets picked up, but finish the first book and write a different one.

Birol · Jun 15, 2008

Blue, you need to finish a book first before you worry about getting tricksy with cliffhanger endings, getting readers to commit to you as a brand, and all that other stuff. Just write. That's it.

It seems to me that you keep coming up with all these ideas of how to present your writing without actually writing. What you need to worry about is the story. What is the story? Write that, no matter how many or few books it takes. Worry about the rest later. Much later.

Writing a Series....How does that work?

Blood Elves FTW

Absolutely Fazed

Are you one, Herbert?

Never be completely back to normal.

Down Under Fan

Blood Elves FTW

On hiatus

Blood Elves FTW

Mackinac Island Fanatic

I'm a grrrl dog, yo

Around

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Bartender, gimme a Linux Mint

Blood Elves FTW

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Soldier, Storyteller

Around and About